D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[overgeeked]

“Win Cons”

What's this?

 

[Maxperson]

It's doable out of the gate, but only if one* is willing to accept a possibly-lengthy period of trial and error as part of the process.

* - and one's players, who will doubtless come out on the short end of some of the "error" outcomes.

There's more to it than trial and error. Some people just don't think well on their feet. That's not a strong suit of theirs and they rely on prep. Others like me improv a great deal of the game and if a group goes outside the box, I can usually just keep on going fairly smoothly. Occasionally, the group leaves the box, buys a ticket on Blue Origin, departs the world and then just keeps going. During those times I have to be like, "Hey guys, I can't do this justice on the fly. Let's play Clank! or Catan and pick this up here next week."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I play 5E and I agree with Lanefan. Rangers favored terrain benefits are way too good. I cut them back to advantage or simply have rangers take the alternate feature from Tasha's instead. Outlander is also advantage instead of auto-win. I'm not a fan of features giving players skip buttons without some cost attached.

Hmm... that's a new take. I've heard a lot more folks lament that the 5e Ranger's favored terrain was too situational and/or weak compared to what other classes get.

That said, Tasha's rules are certainly a decent alternative either way.

In any case, while adventurers are extremely good at certain things, there's certainly more to challenging the PCs in overland travel than "getting lost" or "having trouble foraging". But that thread was dead-horsed a while ago so I'll leave it there.

 

[overgeeked]

Hmm... that's a new take.

Not really if you've read the thread on exploration...

But that thread was dead-horsed a while ago so I'll leave it there.

Weird.

 

[prabe]

I wonder how many GMs who dispute that D&D has “Win Cons” also lament their players having “I Win Buttons.”

I don't think that's as inconsistent as you seem to be implying. If one doesn't think one can win D&D, then one might have strong negative feelings about both players who want to win and (broadly) abilities that at least seem to encourage that thinking.

I suspect the winnability of D&D is probably something for some other thread, some other time. Probably several other threads, into the past as well as the future.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think that's as inconsistent as you seem to be implying. If one doesn't think one can win D&D, then one might have strong negative feelings about both players who want to win and (broadly) abilities that at least seem to encourage that thinking.

I suspect the winnability of D&D is probably something for some other thread, some other time. Probably several other threads, into the past as well as the future.

I think what happens is there is a bit of a confused framing around D&D and Goals/Win Cons “because campaign.”

Having a Deck Goal and achieving a Win Con in a singular game of MtG doesn’t preclude a player from (a) having another Deck Goal/Win Con in a subsequent game, (b) having another Deck Goal/Win Con the next game of a tourney, (c) or in the game after that, or (d) in the rest of their playing career.

This privileged status of “the campaign” as unique to D&D and therefore play is exempt from examination at the goal/conflict level doesn’t hold up because there are easy analogues in other forms of play and because plenty (perhaps most) of D&D is played cognitively at the micro-goal/win con level (like an athlete who quips “one play/game at a time” rather than zooming out to the entire season and getting overwhelmed).

I’m going to escape this pursuit, defeat this enemy, rescue this NPC, sabotage this fortified artillery position, convert this nonbeliever, get positive gold/xp return out of this delve, woo this Baron/ess, consecrate this site to my Patron, escort this vulnerable NPC on the perilous journey, rally the town to rise up against its oppressor etc etc etc.

These are common features of D&D; the goals > the conflicts > the Win Cons.

I think the wrongly privileged status of the campaign plus the unique role of GM Force (which subordinates the concept of Win Cons because achieving your goal and winning the conflict is conceptually an obfuscated game of Calvinball; when does the GM say “you win/lose” rather than “I’ve earned victory/defeat”) in some games of D&D is what should be in the crosshairs for dissection in these conversations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As near as I can tell, the main problem with something like the Ranger's Favored Terrain or the Folk Hero's Rustic Hospitality feature is that these abilities allow a player to say No to the DM.

And although the cases in which these things come up are minor and/or very specific, the traditional balance of authority in D&D is upset, and so there's a knee-jerk reaction to resist them.

I think it's in the best interest of the game, most often, to strangle that urge to death, and to simply let the player have their small victory. The DM'll be all right.

 

[prabe]

I think what happens is there is a bit of a confused framing around D&D and Goals/Win Cons “because campaign.”

Having a Deck Goal and achieving a Win Con in a singular game of MtG doesn’t preclude a player from (a) having another Deck Goal/Win Con in a subsequent game, (b) having another Deck Goal/Win Con the next game of a tourney, (c) or in the game after that, or (d) in the rest of their playing career.

This privileged status of “the campaign” as unique to D&D and therefore play is exempt from examination at the goal/conflict level doesn’t hold up because there are easy analogues in other forms of play and because plenty (perhaps most) of D&D is played cognitively at the micro-goal/win con level (like an athlete who quips “one play/game at a time” rather than zooming out to the entire season and getting overwhelmed).

I’m going to escape this pursuit, defeat this enemy, rescue this NPC, sabotage this fortified artillery position, convert this nonbeliever, get positive gold/xp return out of this delve, woo this Baron/ess, consecrate this site to my Patron, escort this vulnerable NPC on the perilous journey, rally the town to rise up against its oppressor etc etc etc.

These are common features of D&D; the goals > the conflicts > the Win Cons.

I think the wrongly privileged status of the campaign plus the unique role of GM Force (which subordinates the concept of Win Cons because achieving your goal and winning the conflict is conceptually an obfuscated game of Calvinball; when does the GM say “you win/lose” rather than “I’ve earned victory/defeat”) in some games of D&D is what should be in the crosshairs for dissection in these conversations.

So, I don't think the campaign is over-privileged or wrongly privileged, but I'm running two long-term campaigns (87 and 54 sessions) so my bias is obvious to like people orbiting Alpha Centauri. It seems possible to me that commitment to a campaign (or to the playstyle) skews people's thinking about winning and losing, but I've never really thought about winning a TRPG. I have pondered losing one.

That doesn't mean characters (and/or players) can't succeed or fail, and it doesn't mean success and failure aren't considerations. It just means that ... maybe whether the characters succeed or fail isn't always the where win/loss lies.

I think the granularity of play (for lack of a better way to describe it) as you describe it between session goals, arc goals, and campaign goals, is ... not exactly a bug. Whether deciding to have a campaign goal from the start of the campaign is a good thing seems to me like a matter of taste. The first 5E campaign I started has turned out to be a bit of a picaresque, which is fine; the second one seems to have at least something like a goal, established somewhat earlier than I think I normally would have preferred, but I think that's fine, too.

I agree that running long campaigns is different from running short ones, in ways both obvious and not. I'm not sure Force is attached to D&D specifically, so much as it's attached to a broader category of games, but D&D is definitely a standard-bearer, here, so I don't see that as worth arguing about.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Not really if you've read the thread on exploration...

Weird.

Only weird until you do a search for "favored terrain" in that 93 page mega-thread and realize the "auto-win" crowd... is not all that much of a crowd.

 

[pemerton]

although I didn't like how this played out, I don't think that the GM in this case is a bad GM.

I can't judge the GM - not having been there and all that - but I do think it was bad GMing. Which I'm sure won't surprise you.

This is the ability as described. Its one of the key class abilities of a ranger, and requires them to pick a specific terrain in which it will work. Why take it away?

<snip>

What's the harm in letting the ability function as presented? What's lost by use of this ability? What's gained by its removal?

As near as I can tell, the main problem with something like the Ranger's Favored Terrain or the Folk Hero's Rustic Hospitality feature is that these abilities allow a player to say No to the DM.

And although the cases in which these things come up are minor and/or very specific, the traditional balance of authority in D&D is upset, and so there's a knee-jerk reaction to resist them.

I think it's in the best interest of the game, most often, to strangle that urge to death, and to simply let the player have their small victory. The DM'll be all right.

But now I get to shock you by disagreeing a bit!

I think it's more than just an upending of authority that is the problem. It's that the way D&D is presented doesn't really give the GM - or even the table as a whole - the conceptual resources to deal with these abilities.

Eg is the ranger's favoured terrain ability merely a shaper of colour - so the GM just narrates the party's successful travel through the favoured terrain, and then springs the ambush as soon as the PCs leave the (favoured) forest and enter the (disfavoured) mountains? Or is it a type of action resolution, which generates Let it Ride obligations? Or is it meant to be a trigger for the GM to provide backstory that otherwise wouldn't be (in virtue of the ranger both moving and being stealthy, and being able to read the tracks, etc).

Because the ability is presented only in terms of what it means in the fiction, but with no discussion of what it's impact on play is expected to be, I'm not surprised that disputes and confusion arise.

The Folk Hero ability is similar. Your GM has taken it as close to a shaper of colour as can be - it changes where the encounter takes place - but also you get the bonus rest. Whereas my response is based on understanding the ability more in Let it Ride terms and also as shaping in an important fashion the nature of your character and their relationships. I think the textual support for my reading is not nothing - it's a bit richer than the favoured terrain case, I think - but it's still pretty incomplete.

I'm not saying that a RPG rulebook needs to be a theoretical treatise. But it is helpful if it conveys to the participants the way a particular ability is expected to actually make a difference to play.